MURAO, JOSE PEPITO III

I. Article III Section 2, Warrantless Arrests:

Sydeco v. People G.R. No. 202692

Facts:
On June 11, 2006,police officers Aguilar, Bodini, Cruz, and another officer who were manning a
checkpoint along Roxas Boulevard supposedly apprehended herein petitioner Edmund Sydeco. The police
officer supposedly saw petitioner Sydeco’s Ford Ranger swerving 20 meters away from their checkpoint.
Hence, they flagged down Sydeco and apparently smelled alcohol in his breath so they prevented him from
driving. It was at that time when petitioner Sydeco insisted at driving and yelled at the officers saying
“P***** ina, bakit mo ako hinihuli.” Thus, the policemen arrested Sydeco who resisted but was later
controlled and brought to Ospital ng Maynila to get examined and subsequently, the police station.
As for Sydeco, his story is that he was peacefully driving with passengers when he was flagged down. He
was initially non-receptive to the search of the policemen of his car as he was formerly a subject to
extortion. The police officers found 3 bottles of beer at the trunk of his car but he explained this as coming
from his restaurant. The police officers did not believe him and coerced him to have his breath examined
and to be detained. The MeTC and the Court of Appeals found Sydeco guilty of driving under the influence
of alcohol and resistance to a person in authority, hence this petition.
Issue:
W/N the CA erred in upholding the warrantless arrest on Sydeco?
Held:
YES. In criminal cases, even factual details determined by lower courts are opened for review. In the case
at bar, the policemen did not ask for Sydeco’s driver’s license or issue a ticket for a traffic violation as
mandated by RA 4136 or the Land Transportation and Traffic Code. At the time the petitioner was
apprehended, he was not committing a crime as swerving (switching from one lane to another) is only
punishable as reckless driving or when there is a sign warning against swerving. These supposed violations
were found lacking in the records of the incident, hence, herein petitioner Sydeco was subject to an
unlawful warrantless arrest.
The incident also happened around 3:00am, when swerving would not have brought significant danger to
life, liberty or property. Petitioner’s resistance to a body and vehicle search cannot be construed as resisting
arrest as there was no concrete reason or probable cause to conduct such searches. There was nothing under
RA 4136 authorizing officers to order people out of their vehicles and much less rough up herein petitioner,
which the officers did not categorically deny. It is quite impossible to believe the officers’ testimonies that
it took 3 of them to subdue 55-year old Sydeco. In this case, there is a clear indication that the police
officers did not abide by procedural guarantees of the Republic Act and even abused their duty.
Presumption of regularity in the exercise of officers’ duty may always be rebutted by evidence and
testimonies as this case illustrate.
Petitioner is ACQUITTED and the CA decision is SET ASIDE.